A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Geneva Convention only for some?

Liberals have been very harsh on the US for policies they view as breaching the Geneva convention. However, it seems when one of their pets violate Geneva they have nothing to say. In 1977 the Additional Protocol I was added to the 1949 Geneva Convention. One of the things added under Protocol I dealt with "indiscriminate attacks". According to Crimesofwar.org the Protocol I states:

“Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”

So in any military operation any military must only target non-civilian military objectives. Protocol I defines military objectives and does concede the reality that at times targeting military objectives, civilian collateral damage will occur. To target civilians or indiscriminately attack into a civilian population without any real military objective is a direct breach of Protocol I.

So while liberals get on their high horse and scream about the US breaching Geneva by classifying those captured and sent to Gitmo as enemy combatants instead of prisoners of war, they convey no such outrage at Hezbollah for their breach of Protocol I.

Of course, the pat answer will be that Hezbollah is not a part of the Lebaneze military and therefore are exempt. Legally this is true. When legal points are disputed by the US, however, it does not make a difference to the liberals. We have heard how innocent the Lebaneze government is claimed to be in this conflict. A distinction is made between Hezbollah and the Lebaneze government. If the US were to have a militia group gather and start shooting rockets against Mexico because of the illegal immigration problem do you think the US government would be allowed to claim that it is the militia and not them so they have no reponsibility?

Time and again we see the liberal side being inconsistent with reality. How they respond to events depends upon who is doing the action and to whom the action is done and why the action is done. If liberals would strip away who, why and to whom when it comes to the actions of Hezbollah; if they were consistent they would be outraged by the tactics used. They would not simply claim to be outraged when asked about it, they would be vocally outraged. It is time for reason and consistency.